mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motionless electromagnetic generator Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Motionless_electromagnetic_generator

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Feel free to redirect the page to a target you feel is appropriate, if you want to merge any of it I would be happy to userfy it to you. J04n(talk page) 16:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motionless electromagnetic generator

[edit]
Motionless electromagnetic generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Another failed perpetual motion device. "Creator" keeps reverting edits and trying to sell fake products via the talk page. Hurting Wikipedia's solid reputation. Screen317 (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article now has more primary sourced SYNTHESIS and OR than ever. Lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources make it clear the promised edits to bring the article into compliance with these policies are not possible. Keep and edit to bring this article into compliance with WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:PSTS policy: include only material that objective reliable secondary sources find notable. Much of this content was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas E. Bearden for lack of notability. Redirect to History_of_perpetual_motion_machines#2000s. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I strongly disagree with Screen317's raison d'être for this AfD. For one, an edit fight on the talk page has never been a valid reason for AfD that I've seen. For another, at least two of the CITEs seem to meet NOTE, Martin Gardner in particular, and the Random Operators paper to a lesser extent. Finally, the article basically says this thing is BS, although in such a neutral way it's amazing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect, mainly because the article is too poorly sourced. Another reason is that the second section of the article is basically a poorly sourced biography of living person. I like to argue against redirecting it to History_of_perpetual_motion_machines#2000s, while there are no reliable (not self-published) sources that have labeled the MEG as a "perpetual motion machine". The term "perpetual motion" is lousy anyway, while it's usually used as a mocking term by skeptics in a scientific incorrect manner. "Perpetual motion" only applies to "isolated systems" and truly isolated systems cannot exist in nature. Bearden made the exceptional (and scientifically extremely unlikely) claim that the MEG extracts energy from the "quantum vacuum" (e.g. zero-point energy). By this claim, the MEG wouldn't be "perpetual motion machine", but it would be just an exceptional energy machine. One could possibly theoretically proof that it can't be done and that Bearden's ideas are worthless, or at least proof the MEG doesn't produce excess energy. The MEG would then simply be a machine that doesn't work.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The FED article contains nothing about this topic, why would one redir it there? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Mendaliv and LuckyLouie, but now that Maury Markowitz has brought all these new sources to the table, I like to revise to a Keep. Still need to watch out with neutrality and unreferenced statements in section on Bearden, while it's basically a mini WP:BLP.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 20:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that portion should definitely be stripped to the bone. Maury Markowitz (talk)
  • Comment: A few moments of Google-fu turn up mentions of this device in many NOTE places: Bob Park covered it repeatedly in 2002 and later: start here. Bob even wrote an SF Chronicle article which mentions it here. Goldacre mentions Park's statements as an example of bad writing. here. Randi has mentioned him several times, as is the case here. And we have the aforementioned Gardner. It's mentioned in a textbook from SFU, here and a book on perpetual motion here, and even in raum&zeit here (unskeptically, but covering the flap) or New Scientist here. It seems that the skeptical community considers this topic NOTE. So is there some reason these examples don't meet Wiki NOTE, or is there some other reason for continuing the AfD? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of passing mentions that give the same few key details of MEG and appropriate criticism of it, but I must admit these are pretty good sources (except for the book by "Strategic Book Publishing" which is a pay-to-publish press). I could envision using them for a separate article about MEG, or a small section of a suitable target article, and stripping away the many existing citations to Bearden himself and the extraneous Bearden mini-bio and details about his Association. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I happily volunteer to do all of this... but before that, are there any remaining issues for the AfD to consider? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm skeptical that any of these paywalled sources you listed even mention the MEG considering the citations you added to the article don't mention it either. I notice the chronicle one appears to be about an anti-gravity machine IRWolfie- (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 01:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources to really allow us to do that. As such this article can never truly be neutral without OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bearden isn't notable, that has already been established. Of the two secondary sources [1], [2], neither mentions the MEG. We have an absence of secondary sources here, so why would we keep this article? Perhaps the fake PhD is worth mentioning in the history article, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Paucity of reliable secondary sources providing in-depth coverage indicates WP:GNG is not met; the rest leads me to think WP:FRINGE applies. JFHJr (㊟) 20:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a few out of hand dismissals do not sufficient RS make. a13ean (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inadequately sourced, and it is unlikely that reliable sources will be found, because scientists typically don't waste their time refuting perpetual motion when they already know it is impossible. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or Userfy to Maury Markowitz. In its current state, the article is just of too low quality, with several problems, most importantly the shortage of good sources. I don't agree with the characterizations used by the users above. The notability of the MEG is quite weak, but Bearden is quite notable by his reputation in the conspiracy genre. Problem is that by being notably in this genre, the vast majority of sources won't make it through Wikipedia's filter for sources (which obviously was set up to limit fringe sources in non-fringe topics, not to severely hinder uncontroversial information in articles on fringe topics being backup by fringe sources). The PhD is highly questionable, but not proven as fake. To establish the PhD as fake, one would preferably have to go into the details of Bearden's academically submitted work, not just write it off by association. The pseudoscience label is a mocking term used by a few which generally dismiss Bearden's work out of hand instead of providing substantiated critique. The perpetual motion label is just wrong and unscientific, while a machine that would extract energy from the "quantum vacuum" (e.g. zero-point energy) wouldn't violate the laws of thermodynamics.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Martin Gardner thought it notable enough to devote a column to it. I tend to accept his judgement on nonsense like this. He's a sufficient authority to justify inclusion. I don't know why IRWolfe and others think he's not a RS in this topic. (Not everything in Skeptical inquirer is completely reliable, but Gardner is. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia doesn't work this way. At least 3 reliable sources are needed to establish some form of notability. Reliability is generally judged on the information outlet as a whole, instead of on the reputation of a single writer/editor.FrankRadioSpecial (talk) 11:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) there is no such number 3, and (2) 3 notable sources were provided. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misread what I said. I think the Gardner source is reliable, it's just not about this topic. It's about a self-published book by Bearden. I can't see any text specifically about this machine, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did misunderstand, but I disagree with you about the significance of that essay as a source: I read it again just now, and the essay is a RS for this topic. Gardner discusses to some extent Bearden and his book in general, but focuses on his concept of getting energy from vacuum, which I think is supposed by Bearden to be the basis of this machine. That's close enough. Personally, I think the article should be on Bearden, but the article on him was deleted, though with two comments that it should be redirected to this very article. The article was poorly defended, but in any case it was of really low quality--and it did not include the essay by Gardner, which would serve very well for a general source about him &, if found, should have prevented deletion. I think we should cover his work one way or another, and if what we can keep is an article on this machine, so be it. It would be better to keep, and consider a move back to Bearden, though not necessarily restoration of the deleted material.
Looking at it, I see deleting this essentially as resulting in our removal all coverage of him from whatever angle. Such effects are common with people in pseudoscience and other dubious fields. We should cover pseudoscience thoroughly and carefully, because we have the potential to be a RS on the subject, and this is badly needed. What we need is to prevent the proponents from controlling the articles. I think at least some trying to delete articles like this would rather see as little coverage of the whole field as possible, in the hope it will disappear. It won't by itself: people need a RS encyclopedia to understand that nonsense is nonsense. The need to understand in order to judge is the basis of encyclopedias, and of education. DGG ( talk ) 15:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An easier option would be to write an article about Bearden. The existence of that article is now justified. But this specific machine no, the sources don't discuss it, and it seems to be being inferred (it seems Bearden claims to have many perpetual motion machines, saying it's specifically this one is a bit of a leap). What we shouldn't be doing is trying to debunk a topic through original research, which is precisely what seems to be happening at the moment, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I find it hard to justify whether the sources had validity for or with the content. There needs to be an article to debunk perpetual energy workload devices, and declare how they defy physics. There were ads for these machines, and the problems with the claims need to be addressed. I don't think this article can stay where it is, it should be about all supposed perpetual workload machines. - Sidelight12 Talk 08:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite complete
  • Keep seems to be a perfectly respectable article on a perfectly non respectable type of generator. We do better having pseudoscience in Wikipedia, and labelling it as such, than failing to mention it. If we were to delete all the pseudoscience like homeopathy, the world wouldn't have anywhere summarising how terrible pseudoscience generally is. References are fine. Notability is established. If the talk page is being spammed, then the talk page should be protected, not the main article being deleted, that's not how we roll here.- Sheer Incompetence (talk) Now with added dubiosity! 15:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References are fine? Please show an independent source that mentions the MEG, the article is about Bearden and other perpetual motion, anti-gravity machines not the MEG. The article is a synthesis of unrelated sources to this topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[3], does not mention Bearden or MEG, [4] does not mention Bearden or MEG, [5] is a blog, [6] does not mention Bearden or MEG, [7] does not mention Bearden or MEG, [8] self published, etc etc, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirming delete after rewrite The rewrite is full of original research and the independent secondary sources are not about the MEG. I suggest the closing admin actually review a few of these sources themselves to confirm the original research and synthesis [9]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments IRWolfie, I will take them under advisement. In the meantime I have restored my multi-hour edits so the other editors here can decide for themselves. As to the specifics, the article talks about the widely reported problems in the patent system, the widely reported problems that overwork is causing, and several specific mentions in the press that the MEG is seen as example of the junk patents clogging system. You have not detailed the OR or SYN claims other than to mention, non-specifically, what appears to be a claim of some sort of feature creep. In the meantime, a further revert will be counted towards 3RR. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors can look at the article history. I have already specifically listed multiple sources above that you used which do not mention the MEG or Bearden. I have already started a talk page discussion, the onus is on you to get consensus for your changes, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And did you list any of the sources that do mention the MEG or Bearden? The NOTEable sources? It appears you are now complaining about certain sections of the article, which is fine, but this is an AfD page, not the article talk page. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seemed to be confused about policy if you are talking about notable sources. It's the reliability and independence of sources we are interested in, and the extent of their coverage of this device. You added a vast amount of material to an article most of which is irrelevant. The onus is on you to add relevant material to an article, the onus is not on me to try and find what the relevant source is, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
perpetual motion machines. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should we move Dean drive too? Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to "History of perpetual motion machines". Merge parts of it to the appropriate articles. I don't know about "dean drive". - Sidelight12 Talk 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have advanced no argument to show it is notable but merely stated that it is, IRWolfie- (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable. A simple Google books search can show that. But some cannot be alleviated of their ignorance, --J. D. Redding 21:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing in unreliable fringe sources does not mean something is notable, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've already stated that Gardner is NOTEable in this edit. So then, you are claiming that you believe Park and Goldacre are "unreliable fringe sources"? Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, That diff is of DGG not me. Whether Bearden is notable or not is irrelevant to whether the MEG is notable. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. Sources about Bearden do not contribute to notability about this device, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of SUBSTANTIAL coverage in multiple RELIABLE independent secondary sources. The only mention of this in reliable secondary sources is brief passing dismissals. The material in reliable sources is so sparse that a coherent article on this topic is impossible to write. Basically, you would be left with a one-word stub that says "Bullshit" that could never be expanded beyond that. Article as it now stands is just promotional OR and synthesis based on a mish mash of unreliable fringe sources or completely irrelevant reliable sources. No hope that adequate sourcing will ever be found because it has been, and will continue to be, ignored by scientists as not worth their effort to comment on. I don't see anything worth merging. This is not a notable example of a perpetual motion device. It doesn't have any particular historical significance. It's just another in a long, long, long list of such devices. Delete in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:GNG. Miniapolis 14:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.